Hybrid physx (ati and nvidia card in same box) hilarity!

[Creig]

What? tessellation was out 3 years ago by ATi. No one, not even nVIDIA stopped them from pushing this feature. It would have been interesting had they actually done something with tessellation or atleast support the devs to use such feature. It was pretty much a waste of transistors for a tick on the feature set box.

With all the emotional hate aside, its up to the devs to take advantage of PhysX, not nVIDIA. nVIDIA supplies the technology and hardware or in other words tools. The devs are the ones responisble for creating the games and incoporating these features.

In the first quote, you're saying that it was up to ATi to push tessellation and it was their own fault it didn't go anywhere until now. In the second quote, you're saying that it's not Nvidia's fault that PhysX hasn't taken off, it's the developers who aren't doing anything with it.

It sounds like you're applying a double-standard here.

 

[Cookie Monster]

In the first quote, you're saying that it was up to ATi to push tessellation and it was their own fault it didn't go anywhere until now. In the second quote, you're saying that it's not Nvidia's fault that PhysX hasn't taken off, it's the developers who aren't doing anything with it.

It sounds like you're applying a double-standard here.

Compared to what tessellation was back then, PhysX is miles ahead in terms of how much its been pushed. Tessellation wasnt implemented in any games til some DX11 games started hitting the scene.

Dont misunderstand the second part of the quote. You take it out of context, as i've never said anything about it being taken off. nVIDIA provides the tools, and its up to the devs to really decide how its incoporated within the game. I was pointing out the fact that you cannot simply say nVIDIA sucks, because a game with PhysX effects sucks. The blame should go to the devs because it was them who've made the game in the first place. How they implement PhysX effects within the gameplay of the game is their homework. nVIDIA could suggest a thing or two, or help in the software implementation side of things, but it will be the devs who has the final say.

Compared to PhysX, its advertised in games, used in games, people talk(argue) about it everyday in every forums and some actually consider to buy a seperate card for it. This is because nVIDIA is actively encouraging developers to use this technology of theres. In contrast, when i compare this to the tessellation advantage AMD/ATi had, they didn't do anything with it. A waste of transistors really.

 

[Voo]

The blame should go to the devs because it was them who've made the game in the first place. How they implement PhysX effects within the gameplay of the game is their homework.

You do realize that nobody will ever use Physix in a game changing or defining manner as long as it means to lock out half of their clientel? So it's hardly their fault if they can't use it in a meaningful way. Or do you really think people will make games that'll only work with Nvidia GPUs?
Atm Nvidia damns their own creation into a soleley gimmicky and not game changing role.. a pity for something that could be as useful as good physic effects.

 

[T2k]

What? tessellation was out 3 years ago by ATi.

Wrong, it's a LOT older. It arrived with my 8500 IIRC...

No one, not even nVIDIA stopped them from pushing this feature.

ROFL, just admitted it's about MS to decide what's in DX and what's not - and you really think after NV refused to sign up for it - which they ALWAYS DO if it's coming from someone else and they don't have anything to show - MS had a choice to introduce it, solely for ATI, risking NV might go off the track? MS had no dog in this fight, NV essentially 'filibustered' it.

It would have been interesting had they actually done something with tessellation or atleast support the devs to use such feature. It was pretty much a waste of transistors for a tick on the feature set box.

If you have no clue about it, certainly...
Wrong again, ATI successfully pushed it alone: all the big engines (UT, CS etc) supported it years ago already, it's just that later they had to decide what features worth the extra trannies.

 

[v8envy]

Correction -- nobody sane will *REQUIRE* hardware accelerated, nvidia-only physics for meaningful features. Software PhysX is perfectly fine by everyone.

I don't know of anyone planning to buy a separate card for PhysX. Plenty of people including myself own 8800GTs from when those were the only card to consider, however. Since those 8800GTs have a resale value so low as to not bother with ebay we wouldn't mind tossing one in as a PhysX processor. But since we can't, we're a bit grouchy and bitter since the ONLY reason we can't do so is blatantly evil, anti-consumer and anti-enthusiast NV marketing. The functionality of the hardware we own is disabled if and only if the competition's product is detected.

I can understand how NV would love for me to buy a $500 graphics card to get PhysX. But I (and plenty of others) simply don't see hardware PhysX ever being important enough to lower pants to half mast and bend over a barrel for. For an end cost of basically "free", yeah, I'd keep a GPU I bought from NV just in case. Anything more than that and NV can go pound mud.

 

[NIGELG]

Correction -- nobody sane will *REQUIRE* hardware accelerated, nvidia-only physics for meaningful features. Software PhysX is perfectly fine by everyone.

I don't know of anyone planning to buy a separate card for PhysX. Plenty of people including myself own 8800GTs from when those were the only card to consider, however. Since those 8800GTs have a resale value so low as to not bother with ebay we wouldn't mind tossing one in as a PhysX processor. But since we can't, we're a bit grouchy and bitter since the ONLY reason we can't do so is blatantly evil, anti-consumer and anti-enthusiast NV marketing. The functionality of the hardware we own is disabled if and only if the competition's product is detected.

I can understand how NV would love for me to buy a $500 graphics card to get PhysX. But I (and plenty of others) simply don't see hardware PhysX ever being important enough to lower pants to half mast and bend over a barrel for. For an end cost of basically "free", yeah, I'd keep a GPU I bought from NV just in case. Anything more than that and NV can go pound mud.

Great post.....sums it up for me.

 

[NoQuarter]

Compared to what tessellation was back then, PhysX is miles ahead in terms of how much its been pushed. Tessellation wasnt implemented in any games til some DX11 games started hitting the scene.

According to Wikipedia these games supported Truform (tessellation)..
Counter-Strike
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six
Soldier of Fortune
Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix
Quake
Quake 2
Unreal Tournament
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Madden NFL 2004
Bugdom
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Serious Sam
Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
Command & Conquer: Renegade
Neverwinter Nights

 

[bfdd]

They arent letting the competition use their hard work, they are stopping the customer from fully using the product they were sold. It souldnt matter what combination you team that physx capable card to, it should provide physx capability.

^ this

 

[biostud]

One thing is to not allowing physX to run on ATi cards, another thing is to actively stop it from working on nvidia (or Ageia) hardware when other videocards are present in the system.

Specially those with Agiea cards should be able to sue, because I'm pretty sure that this limitation was not present when they bought the card. I don't think anyone was promised they could use physX with ATi cards present when they bought their nVidia card.

 

[3DVagabond]

Since the nVidia card is only being used for PhysX why worry about having the latest drivers? Just use the last driver release before they threw the bug in.

Now, I realize that won't work in every case. Like with cards that weren't around before the "ATI bug", so there won't be older drivers. Also I understand that it doesn't address the problem with them doing it in the 1st place. It just seems to me that in 99% of the cases, where people have cards that will have pre ATI bug drivers available, it's a futile gesture on nVidia's part that accomplishes nothing.

People should just do it anyway and post threads on nVidia's boards about it just to taunt them.

 

[beginner99]

Since the nVidia card is only being used for PhysX why worry about having the latest drivers? Just use the last driver release before they threw the bug in.

Now, I realize that won't work in every case. Like with cards that weren't around before the "ATI bug", so there won't be older drivers. Also I understand that it doesn't address the problem with them doing it in the 1st place. It just seems to me that in 99% of the cases, where people have cards that will have pre ATI bug drivers available, it's a futile gesture on nVidia's part that accomplishes nothing.

Yeah wanted to post that too. just use old driver version.

I do get it, why they do it. No sane person would by a fermi if he could get an ati and buy a cheap or even use an already available old nv card for physx.

But as always with closed-tech stuff, it won't work. The people how would additionally buy an nv card next to their ati card if the could use physx is alot greater and would probably bringt much more money than the 10 additonal fermis sold because of it.

Not to mention the money spent to actually introduce this "feature" into the drivers.

And once everyone could actually use it game developers might do something useful which but increase income on nv side even more. That's the sad thing Any reasonable thinking person will see that it's not only annyoing but also prevent nv from making more money with it -> eg completely irrational

EDIT:

This was probably decided by some kind of "suit-wearer" that has absolutley no clue about the tech.

 

[biostud]

"99% of gaming PC's have a nvidia card inside" would be quite an achievement to use for marketing of nvidias products. That would be possible if physX would work alongside an Ati card. The brand value alone would be very strong, and as no-one buy a videocard to play only physX titles, I seriously doubt that it would hurt sales if the enabled physX alongside Ati.

What differences are there really when buying a videocard, depending on physX enabled alongside Ati.

Buying Scenario 1: New computer

physX enabled
Ati has the best card: you buy an Ati card, and maybe add a nvidia card for physX
nvidia has the best card, you buy nvidia and maybe add a nvidia card for physX

physX disabled
Ati has the best card: you buy an Ati card
nvidia has the best card: you buy nvidia and maybe add a nvidia card for physX

Buying Scenario 2: Upgrade from Ati card

physX enabled
Ati has the best card: you buy an Ati card, and maybe add a nvidia card for physX
nvidia has the best card, you buy nvidia and maybe add a nvidia card for physX

physX disabled
Ati has the best card: you buy an Ati card
nvidia has the best card: you buy nvidia and maybe add a nvidia card for physX

Buying Scenario 3: Upgrade from nvidia card

physX enabled
Ati has the best card: you buy an Ati card, and use your old nvidia card for physX
nvidia has the best card, you buy nvidia and use your old nvidia card for physX

physX disabled
Ati has the best card: you buy an Ati card
nvidia has the best card: you buy nvidia and use your old nvidia card for physX

In these situations either nvidia wins or it's a tie when physX is enabled. It's only in the situations where the buyer should decide to choose nvidia over Ati purely because of physX capability that nvidias current scheme works.

 

[pmv]

Correction -- nobody sane will *REQUIRE* hardware accelerated, nvidia-only physics for meaningful features. Software PhysX is perfectly fine by everyone.

I don't know of anyone planning to buy a separate card for PhysX. Plenty of people including myself own 8800GTs from when those were the only card to consider, however. Since those 8800GTs have a resale value so low as to not bother with ebay we wouldn't mind tossing one in as a PhysX processor. But since we can't, we're a bit grouchy and bitter since the ONLY reason we can't do so is blatantly evil, anti-consumer and anti-enthusiast NV marketing. The functionality of the hardware we own is disabled if and only if the competition's product is detected.

I can understand how NV would love for me to buy a $500 graphics card to get PhysX. But I (and plenty of others) simply don't see hardware PhysX ever being important enough to lower pants to half mast and bend over a barrel for. For an end cost of basically "free", yeah, I'd keep a GPU I bought from NV just in case. Anything more than that and NV can go pound mud.

This is a good point. It actually wouldn't matter so much if nvidia had a decent mid-range card out, as one could get that and use the old one for physX. But they don't, so most people getting a new card to replace an 8800gt will be going ATI. Meaning they then can't use the old one for anything.